Macroevolution

[Led-Zeppelin]

I can't even comprehend how we evolved from primordial goo, much less from any other organism.

 

 

 

The same goes for all other life on Earth. Not to mention, it can never be truly tested without taking millions of years.

 

 

 

Ok, I want to have a dig, sure, microevolution cannot be truely measured, but can religion? Isn't it all purely faith? Yet people that beleive we evolved from 'primordial goo' get scoffed at from religeous people?

[Rebdragon]

I can't even comprehend how we evolved from primordial goo, much less from any other organism.

 

 

 

The same goes for all other life on Earth. Not to mention, it can never be truly tested without taking millions of years.

 

 

 

Ok, I want to have a dig, sure, microevolution cannot be truely measured, but can religion? Isn't it all purely faith? Yet people that beleive we evolved from 'primordial goo' get scoffed at from religeous people?

 

I'm thinking it's not as much of a religious thing as a "it seems completely illogical that this could have happened" thing.

[Tigra00]

I can't even comprehend how we evolved from primordial goo, much less from any other organism.

 

 

 

The same goes for all other life on Earth. Not to mention, it can never be truly tested without taking millions of years.

 

 

 

Ok, I want to have a dig, sure, microevolution cannot be truely measured, but can religion? Isn't it all purely faith? Yet people that beleive we evolved from 'primordial goo' get scoffed at from religeous people?

 

I'm think it's not as much of a religious thing as a "it seems completely illogical that this could have happened" thing.

 

 

 

One could use the same argument for all religion, but meh.

[warri0r45]

Interesting, a bump. In response to 'microevolution can't be measured' it actually can, in a way. Using population genetics we can measure allele frequencies in populations and how much they change over time. It's pretty simple but pretty involved field work, I'd imagine. There's also this marker to determine whether a population is evolving called Hardy-Wienburg Equilibrium. The conditions for a population to be in such a state are as follows:

 

 

 

- Extremely large population size

 

- No gene flow

 

- No mutations

 

- Random mating

 

- No natural selection

 

 

 

Now seeing as none, if any of these criteria are ever met by a population, they almost certainly always evolve to some degree.

 

 

 

Edit: In response to the Barihawk quote that Led Zeppelin made, it dosen't actually take millions of years to test evolution and get tangible results. I've given an example of emerging speciation which was tested over many generations of fruit fly which I'd imagine didn't take millions of years. Testing microevolution and emergant speciation has been successful, as far as my knowlege on the issue is at the moment. Added to that, there are no known barriers which will prevent microevolutionary changes compounding into macroevolutionary changes. It's just nonsense to think that way if you have a background or knowlege of genetics. Expanding on that, there is no where near anything that I know of in DNA that will prevent any mutation from occuring - it's beyond the DNA's control. It dosen't think about mutations it undergos - it just rolls with the punches, so to speak.

[darkpoet837]

I have a few things to say.

 

 

 

As for the age of the earth, for all christians out there, the bilble is not at all conclusive to how old the earth exactly is. Our earth has lasted 2 ages, some say that they were seperate, and they are rite. The first age was when angels and god walked the earth. It was the time of dinosuars, before humans even came about. This is in the bible later on, (not genisis, that is the creation of humans, after the first age war of satan and god). This can be shown by just how fast some dinosoures died, and fossel fules. Some died so fast that the food in their stomachs did not even have time to digest. Others were burried by dust and water before they even died. The fossil fules on the other hand, were most likely made all at the same time, when a large event covered the entire earth. The second creation finds god looking on at the earth, covered in water and darkness, laid waste by the great war. The second age, the age of humans, has lasted about 6000 years.

 

 

 

Now that that is done, let me get to the idea of microevelution. The idea of small changes in the structure of dna is quite true, some good some bad. Many inharitlble problems like hemopheliac and SCA (sicle cell anemia) are proof of this vary idea: DNA replication is not perfect. The posibility of changes can come from many factors. Some are environmental, like the temperature of the location, or presence of Mutative chemicles and radiation. Others are inner, mistakes made durring the process of copying the extreamly long DNA chain. Most of these mistakes dont mater, as they are to small to do much of anything, or the effect can be countered by the enviromental conditions. An example of this is SCA. SCA is a disease prominent in people with African heritige. The reason is simple. This disease was a mircoevolutionary success in fighting off malaria. The sicled blood sells helped hold back the parisite that causes malaria, which is prominent in Africa because of dry weather. Because ppl not affected by malaria as much servied, they passed the gene along, and it became a wide scale mutation. That is just one example. Other examples are countless, as microevolution is a important aspect that takes place in everything that lives.

 

 

 

That is enough for now i guese...something to get you thinking... :-k

[warri0r45]

I have a few things to say.

 

 

 

As for the age of the earth, for all christians out there, the bilble is not at all conclusive to how old the earth exactly is. Our earth has lasted 2 ages, some say that they were seperate, and they are rite. The first age was when angels and god walked the earth. It was the time of dinosuars, before humans even came about. This is in the bible later on, (not genisis, that is the creation of humans, after the first age war of satan and god). This can be shown by just how fast some dinosoures died, and fossel fules. Some died so fast that the food in their stomachs did not even have time to digest. Others were burried by dust and water before they even died. The fossil fules on the other hand, were most likely made all at the same time, when a large event covered the entire earth. The second creation finds god looking on at the earth, covered in water and darkness, laid waste by the great war. The second age, the age of humans, has lasted about 6000 years.

 

 

 

Now that that is done, let me get to the idea of microevelution. The idea of small changes in the structure of dna is quite true, some good some bad. Many inharitlble problems like hemopheliac and SCA (sicle cell anemia) are proof of this vary idea: DNA replication is not perfect. The posibility of changes can come from many factors. Some are environmental, like the temperature of the location, or presence of Mutative chemicles and radiation. Others are inner, mistakes made durring the process of copying the extreamly long DNA chain. Most of these mistakes dont mater, as they are to small to do much of anything, or the effect can be countered by the enviromental conditions. An example of this is SCA. SCA is a disease prominent in people with African heritige. The reason is simple. This disease was a mircoevolutionary success in fighting off malaria. The sicled blood sells helped hold back the parisite that causes malaria, which is prominent in Africa because of dry weather. Because ppl not affected by malaria as much servied, they passed the gene along, and it became a wide scale mutation. That is just one example. Other examples are countless, as microevolution is a important aspect that takes place in everything that lives.

 

 

 

That is enough for now i guese...something to get you thinking... :-k

 

 

 

The second paragraph looks pretty good to me and yes, the sickle cell anemia/malaria example in Africa is a good example of a mircoevolutionary change due to natural selection and a key example of a mutation of harmful nature in one instance (sickle cell anemia is a debilitating disease where your red blood cells can't carry oxygen as efficiently) that is actually beneficial in another instance (the malarial protozoan can not infect sickle cells). What's your take on macroevolution, on the other hand?

[darkpoet837]

In a scope of things, it is totaly posable, and happens as we speak. Slowly of course, but it still goes on. It may take some time for it to happen, but in some ways it already has. Look at dog breading. Over many years, they have taken dogs with serton charachtersistics and bred them over and over again. Now some of those dogs are so far down the chain, that they can not breed with other lines in the same species without dieing. An example of this is breeding a pakeaneese with a great dane. It just cant happen.

 

 

 

EDIT:btw, what did you think of my first parigraph (it goes with your other sig topic, but did not feel like reviving it, lol)?

[warri0r45]

In a scope of things, it is totaly posable, and happens as we speak. Slowly of course, but it still goes on. It may take some time for it to happen, but in some ways it already has. Look at dog breading. Over many years, they have taken dogs with serton charachtersistics and bred them over and over again. Now some of those dogs are so far down the chain, that they can not breed with other lines in the same species without dieing. An example of this is breeding a pakeaneese with a great dane. It just cant happen.

 

 

 

EDIT:btw, what did you think of my first parigraph (it goes with your other sig topic, but did not feel like reviving it, lol)?

 

 

 

To be totally honest I didn't understand your first paragraph all that well. Perhaps it's because I'm on holidays now and my brain has stopped working properly. But by all means, ressurect my other topic if you want.

[darkpoet837]

Uhhhhh.....if mircroevolution and macroevolution are dif....can u explain how....(kind of missed the difference till just now)... :-w

[warri0r45]

Uhhhhh.....if mircroevolution and macroevolution are dif....can u explain how....(kind of missed the difference till just now)... :-w

 

 

 

Some people think they are different. They aren't. The one and only difference is the outcome. The mechanisms used to achieve both are exactly the same i.e. mutations and natural selection, to boil it down to it's roots.

[darkpoet837]

Sweet, so they are the same....but still slightly dif.....neet.

[warri0r45]

Sweet, so they are the same....but still slightly dif.....neet.

 

 

 

If you're interested, here's an explanation other than mine. Ask any scientist if this what the article claims is true. They'll say yes.

 

 

 

Clicky.

[darkpoet837]

Ok, i get it now. The difference is just in the scope of the sample....and how the end is. Macro is a large scale view, and in the end the subjects can no longer breed....It usuasly is just a bunch of microevolutionary steps put into one part. :-k

[warri0r45]

Ok, i get it now. The difference is just in the scope of the sample....and how the end is. Macro is a large scale view, and in the end the subjects can no longer breed....It usuasly is just a bunch of microevolutionary steps put into one part. :-k

 

 

 

That's it. Pretty simple, really.